Can anyone provide me with historical references mentioning the life of Jesus?

There are none from the life time the Jesus figure would have lived. Josephus wasn't even born until after the Jesus figure would have been crucified if they existed. He was born 37 AD. So Josephus writes well after the lifetime and is just reporting what followers relate to him as he also recorded other people's beliefs and religious figures but we don't take that as evidence they are real.

Here are some of the main sources that Christians cite for historical references. See link for fuller critical analysis of the claims.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

I'll help you out: Josephus is widely acknowledged to have been altered at some point, and is therefore considered by historians to be an unreliable source. But it wouldn't matter, because even Josephus wasn't born until after Jesus supposedly died, and he didn't write his "Antiquities" until much later. There are no written records of Jesus that coincide with his alleged lifetime. The gospels, themselves were written by anonymous authors as second-hand accounts, and weren't attributed to specific disciples until centuries later, when the individual books of the bible were compiled together and edited.

None of this is proof no such person existed. But when the best evidence we have consists of second- or third-hand accounts written decades or, in some cases, centuries after the events they describe, it's difficult at best to accept the more fantastic elements of the stories. So while I might concede that there was a person (or possibly multiple people) who inspired the stories about Jesus, I don't accept any of the writings as good evidence that there was anything supernatural about his life and death.

Actually, Josephus did not live during the period in which Jesus supposedly lived. He was born about a hundred years after the fact.

The two primary people who are frequently cited are Tacitus, a Roman historian, and Pliny the Younger*; however, while both of them wrote about the Christian religion, neither one actually mentioned Christ directly - instead referring to a titular figure in the Christian religion they called "the Christus". Both were writing after the fact (within approximately 150 years of Christ's supposed death).

Neither Tacitus or Pliny mentioned any supposed divine occurrences connected with the figure, nor did they mention the famous crucifixion - only a generic reference to the execution of the Christus.

*Sorry, got my title incorrect; younger, not elder.

All extra-biblical sources which mention Jesus are fraudulent.

Jesus was inserted in Josephus for example and the material from the time of Jesus which originated from Jerusalem do not mention any such person indicating Jesus is a fraud.

Research the findings and recordings of historian Tacitus. Josephus is definitely a legitimate source since he was alive around the time of Jesus and the early church.

Eye witness accounts such as those found in the Bible can be found in secular sources as well. The Bible is a legitimate historical reference tool and should be used concerning related matters.

Yes, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles. All of these are regarded as containing history. All historians of any reputation do indeed refer to them as historical. They are not history books but they are regarded as recording the life of a real person.

People who don't believe Jesus existed at all are the atheist equivalent of young earth creationists and just as embarressing!

In addition to the numerous references to Jesus in ancient religious literature (references that range from the New Testament to the Gnostic writings to even the Quran), there are references to Jesus by the following:

Tacitus, the ancient Roman historian, who wrote of "Christus" being "put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius"

Josephus, a Jewish historian,who made two references to Jesus in his famous Antiquities

There are also references to Jesus or to early followers of Jesus in the writings of Roman historian Suetonius, second century Greek satirist Lucian, and Syrian philosopher Mara Bar-Serapion.

(A note on Josephus: While one of the two references to Jesus was likely tampered with, historians agree there was at least a core reference to Jesus prior to its being edited. Thus, Josephus’ references constitute, at the very least, evidence of the reality of Jesus as a historical figure.)

And What about the Gospels?

The "You can't prove the Bible with the Bible." is a superficial (and frankly vacuous) argument misses an obvious point. Before the Bible was "the Bible," it was (and, in the eyes of the skeptic, still is) a collection of ancient writings.

Accordingly, those ancient writings deserve (at the very least) to be analyzed by the same standards as any other ancient document. The Gospel of Luke, for example, cannot be embraced by mainstream, secular historians as "divinely inspired." But the Gospel of Luke CAN and SHOULD be assessed as a first century document authored by a man who believed in Jesus and counted himself among Jesus' followers.

It is the overwhelming consensus of historical scholars - both biblical and non-biblical, Christian and non-Christian, conservative and liberal - that the first century figure known as Jesus of Nazareth really lived. While some may argue that Jesus' life has been embellished, it is an absurd to deny the existence of the historical Jesus.

Do you think that after the Romans crucified Jesus and kind of figured out boy did we do the wrong thing here. You think they are going to document that? As a matter of fact it seems that the Romans did their best to cover everything up. There is Evidence of digging up and destroying the Evidence that they crucified anyone but whoops they missed one that was found in 1967. With evidence of cover up of what they did. Jesus is for real dude. Believe it.

Other religions even document it. Religion and historical recorders were many times one and the same at that time of history.

So will you somehow magically believe Jesus existed if some other -man- wrote it down on a papyrus?

Any HONEST historian would admit that Jesus of Nazareth lived at the time the Bible depicts.

Here are just a FEW of the URLs I have found that support this:

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib...

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html

http://users.binary.net/polycarp/jesus.html

http://dmc.members.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

http://www.british-israel.ca/Historical.htm

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html

http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html

Okay - there are some references. Now, go and do a little homework!

It seems that the level of your dishonesty, in order to escape your moral responsibility before a holy and righteous God, is so extreme, that you would rather commit "intellectual suicide" than admit the facts! Your theme song seems to be, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's already made up!"